Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HEIRS OF ALBERTO SUGUITAN v. CITY OF MANDALUYONG

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 177611 2012-04-18	REPUBLIC v. RODOLFO L. LEGASPI PEREZ, J.
It cannot, therefore, be gainsaid that the outcome of the first phase of expropriation proceedings be it an order of expropriation or an order of dismissal finally disposes of the case and is, for said reason, final. The same is true of the second phase that ends with an order determining the amount of just compensation[34] which, while essential for the transfer of ownership in favor of the plaintiff, is but the last stage of the expropriation proceedings and the outcome of the initial finding by the court that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property sought to be expropriated, for the public use or purpose described in the complaint.[35] In the same manner that the order of expropriation may be appealed by any party by filing a record on appeal, a second and separate appeal may likewise be taken from the order fixing the just compensation. Indeed, jurisprudence recognizes the existence of multiple appeals in a complaint for expropriation because of said two stages in every action for expropriation.[36]
	GR No. 168967 2010-02-12	CITY OF ILOILO v. LOLITA CONTRERAS-BESANA DEL CASTILLO, J.
An order of condemnation or dismissal is final, resolving the question of whether or not the plaintiff has properly and legally exercised its power of eminent domain.[36] Once the first order becomes final and no appeal thereto is taken, the authority to expropriate and its public use can no longer be questioned.[37]
	GR NO. 128509 2006-08-22	ROBLE ARRASTRE v. ALTAGRACIA VILLAFLOR CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It may be true, as argued by petitioner, that Resolution No. 93-27, which was enacted by the Sangguniang Bayan of Hilongos, is not an ordinance but merely a resolution. A municipal ordinance is different from a resolution. An ordinance is a law, but a resolution is merely a declaration of the sentiment or opinion of a lawmaking body on a specific matter. An ordinance possesses a general and permanent character, but a resolution is temporary in nature. Additionally, the two are enacted differently - a third reading is necessary for an ordinance, but not for a resolution, unless decided otherwise by a majority of all the Sanggunian members.[37]
	GR NO. 152230 2005-08-09	JESUS IS LORD CHRISTIAN SCHOOL FOUNDATION v. MUNICIPALITY OF PASIG CALLEJO, SR., J.
" It is an indispensable attribute of sovereignty; a power grounded in the primary duty of government to serve the common need and advance the general welfare. Thus, the right of eminent domain appertains to every independent government without the necessity for constitutional recognition. The provisions found in modern constitutions of civilized countries relating to the taking of property for the public use do not by implication grant the power to the government, but limit the power which would, otherwise, be without limit. Thus, our own Constitution provides that "[p]rivate property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation." Furthermore, the due process and equal protection clauses act as additional safeguards against the arbitrary exercise of this governmental power.[41]
	GR NO. 147245 2005-03-31	REPUBLIC v. CA CARPIO, J.
Eminent domain is the inherent power of a sovereign state to appropriate private property to particular uses to promote public welfare.[13] No one questions NIA's authority to exercise the delegated power of eminent domain. However, the power of eminent domain is not limitless. NIA cannot exercise the power with wanton disregard for property rights. One basic limitation on the State's power of eminent domain is the constitutional directive that, "[p]rivate property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation."[14]
	GR No. 154411 2003-06-19	NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. HEIRS OF ISIDRO GUIVELONDO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The second phase of the eminent domain action is concerned with the determination by the Court of "the just compensation for the property sought to be taken." This is done by the Court with the assistance of not more than three (3) commissioners. The order fixing the just compensation on the basis of the evidence before, and findings of, the commissioners would be final, too. It would finally dispose of the second stage of the suit, and leave nothing more to be done by the Court regarding the issue. Obviously, one or another of the parties may believe the order to be erroneous in its appreciation of the evidence or findings of fact or otherwise. Obviously, too, such a dissatisfied party may seek a reversal of the order by taking an appeal therefrom.[29] The outcome of the first phase of expropriation proceedings, which is either an order of expropriation or an order of dismissal, is final since it finally disposes of the case. On the other hand, the second phase ends with an order fixing the amount of just compensation. Both orders, being final, are appealable.[30] An order of condemnation or dismissal is final, resolving the question of whether or not the plaintiff has properly and legally exercised its power of eminent domain.[31] Once the first order becomes final and no appeal thereto is taken, the authority to expropriate and its public use can no longer be questioned.[32]